ULX Telecon 2010-05-26
- Time: 16:00-17:00 Eastern
- Skype: +9900827042954214
- US Dial-In: +1-201-793-9022
- Room Code: 295-4214
1) Roll Call
- John Bradley
- Scott Cantor
- Trent Adams
- Paul Trevithick
- Bob Sunday
2) New version "4" set of mockups
Current RP convention (v4) vs. Connect button (v3)
One change in the v4 mockups (from the v3 series) is that we backed off from insisting that RPs use a "standard" "Connect" button.
TA: Not sure I agree. I think we should strive for consistency. Perhaps the "Connect" (or whatever) button should be a "SHOULD" in our guidance.
SC: It will be tricky to get consistency across verticals. I don't think a MUST is realistic
JB: "Connect" has become even more political, so that's a reason against. "Connect," according to Google and Facebook, is such that there is bi-directional flow and not just "login", so that's another reason against.
Conclusion: Let's table (for now) forcing RPs to some standard icon, at least for now. In other words leave the v4 mockups the way they are in v4.
V4 didn't add a "help" or "what's this" link
It had been suggested that we include a "help" or "what's this?" link on the popup. Valeska was unconvinced so she didn't include it.
PT: Valeska felt that by switching back to the "login" or "signin" that the site normally uses that it would be self-evident what was going on and a "help" link wasn't needed.
SC: My co-developer felt that there should be a help link that provided an explanation of federation (federated sign-in). But I don't think it is all that critical
JB: I think it should be part of the widget
TA: How about a question mark just to the left of the close box, with the results of the click populating the overlay frame (rather than taking users to another full page, or pop-up)
PT: I like Trent's suggestion of a small question mark just to the left of the close box
Conclusion: We SHOULD include it and the text should include an explanation of at least the federation related aspects of logging in.
V4 eliminated the "show all" list
It had been suggested that we include a complete list of all login options. We didn't do it because we didn't quite understand what problem it solved.
SC: I still think we do need the drop down list of everything. Two reasons (1) accessibility
BS: Yes, this IS needed for an accessibility perspective
JB: Yes, it must comply with ADA act, etc.
SC: The other motivation (2) is "context"--it gives some kinds of naive users some context. HOWEVER: it could move to a completely different presentation model (e.g. take over the screen on its own page (NOT on the popup))
TA: I though it was valuable that it illustrates the number of options. Perhaps there's a text link right next to that # of text that says "show all".
SC: Perhaps need a heuristic on how to present.
TA: Yes, if there are a huge number, then it could become a hierarchy
BS: Scroll bar (v.s. paging). This will not meet the Canadian accessibility guidelines and he THINKS it won't meet the W3C accessibility guidelines.
Conclusion: we do need to add the "show all" link but that it can lead to a page (not in the popup).
New flow in v4: directly sign in by just clicking
Valeska had suggested that when we click on "Sign In" the n>1th time it should just sign you in with one click using the same account. The favicon and its dropdown allowed you to choose another account if you wished.
TA: I found this confusing
JB: Yes, I think people will find this confusing
TA: There is some value to letting you know what you signed in with last time, but the little icon isn't enough. At the least some kind of confirmation "you signed in with Google last time, sign in again"
SC: If someone sits down and they are not malicious then
JB: Microsoft did some work on this. They ended up with "Click OK to continue logging in with XYZ" (not one click)
SC: From a confusion POV I'd think clicking on the Google thing is how you sign in.
SC: I would reverse them. The signin would do the drop down on the "Sign In"
TA: I would stop short of promoting the favicon in the bar. If you show people a print-out of this page and ask "if you click this, what do you think this will do?" you'd get different answers.
JB: Facebook proved that the last thing you want to do is surprise people.
SC: Yes, we've found that the deployers argue for fewer clicks, but actually they have more support
PT: Hmm… now that I think about it, we went through something similar in designing the Azigo selector and concluded that the extra click was actually better.
Conclusion: unanimously agreed to eliminate this flow/option entirely.
This new screen showed a list of the (two) previously used accounts in an upper area, and all other choices in a lower area.
Conclusion: Everyone agreed that this one is good. Further, since the consensus was to eliminate the flow with the favicon on the toolbar (see previous section). Two flows instead of three is simpler too.
New aspect ratio and consistent icon size
Version 4 used new aspect ratio and account icon size.
JB: The trick will be getting the bitmap from
PT: This IS the "new" proposed IMI card display size
SC: I'm not convinced that an active client should necessarily display these.
3) Merger of IdP + ULX has been approved
- Valeska create a revised version of the v4 mockupshttp://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/ulx/Web+Mockup+Statement+of+Work#WebMockupStatementofWork-StatementofWork%233
- Paul to create a doodle/email to find a new (better) time for next week's ULX call (from now on)
- Paul to create a ulx:new SOW #4 for Kevin to implement the revised v4 mockups